Section 110 of the Copyright law says this is not infringement

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Ernest House

I keep forgetting to mention how entertaining your tag line is. Always good for a smile.

Again, good analysis from the "House" department. :-) I think it's the fact that the whole licensing process shifts from "reasonable-online-automated-pricing grid" to "prohibitive-manual-attorney-expensive black hole" that strikes me as excessive and ultimately not "serving the public good". But, I'm a newbie to this whole scene. I would think some video-music works don't, by definition have a distribution of tens of thousands. The sync license pricing could reflect the number of ears and number of performances as part of the final license price. Thanks for putting up with my newbie questions and analysis.

I just enjoy the give and take of discussion - kind of a keyboarding form reminiscent of my days as talk-radio on-air talent.

I completely that it certainly should be simpler to track down the copyright holders in order to secure licensing - most written works have the name and address where one can get permission to use somewhere in the publication and it would be great if musical recording did also. I think one reason is that industry practises just haven't caught up with the fact that it's no longer a tight little circle of people who all know each other anyway.

[Richard Alvarez]

"I think it's the fact that the whole licensing process shifts from "reasonable-online-automated-pricing grid" to "prohibitive-manual-attorney-expensive black hole" that strikes me as excessive and ultimately not "serving the public good".

But I keep telling you it IS easy to get synch rights to music. Go to any of these royalty free music sites, and the licensing fees and licenses are right on the page. Easy peasy.

It's the fact that you want to synch EXTREMELY VALUABLE and poplular music that can be difficult. You keep saying the "PROCESS" is too difficult and expensive. I keep saying that is so for CERTAIN pieces of music, but not all. The problem does not lie in the copyright laws, or in the fact that individuals get to determine BY THEMSELVES how accessable they want to make aquiring the rights to their property to be.

I own a home. IF I want to sell it, I list it on the market. IF you want to buy it, you make an offer. IF you are looking for a house JUST LIKE MINE, and you FIND MINE, and it's NOT ON THE MARKET it's going to be extremely difficult for you to get hold of me, and ask me to sell it to you. I might not want to list it. I might be convinced that I will sell it, but at an extremely high price.

SYNCHING RIGHTS are just one of the many rights that are the property of a copyright holder. They are under no obligation to sell them, or indeed even OFFER then for sale to the public. The controll of those rights is completely at their discretion. One might argue that your house should be listed at a fair price for purchase or rental on an easily accessable online database, with predetermined purchase and rental prices with an easy to print out form that won't cost much... even if you don't want to sell it. Doesn't that sound reasonable?

Each of the rights held by the copyright holder(s) has a specific value to the holders. Synch rights for popular music has gone through the roof with the advent of music videos in popularity. Just like houses in a particular location can become extremely expensive to buy. It's just the market factors at work.

[Les Wilson]

I think it's a difficult task you've taken on to try and defend the current process and law. Finding an analogy is difficult and the one about selling a house falls very short. House sales are about transferring ownership. The negotiated price is the same whether you live in it, pick your nose in it or raise it. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a good analogy.

Royalty free music is not the same. There's no lyrics, No story. no message. It's background music. My point about "not serving the public good" is that popular music, by definition of it being popular, is part of the culture out there making social commentary but using it in the music video art-form is the domain of the attorney adorned rich.

The law and process for sync rights needs to be improved. In the case of a popular work, the act of giving license has already been done for listening and performance. I never said it had to have sync rights available. Sync rights to popular music should be as easy to determine availability, apply for and acquire as it is for other rights. They should not require attorneys, snail mail, phone calls and faxes.

As far as the assertion that there is no problem with the law wrt sync is a point I disagree with. Consider that the law doesn't mention sync rights.

[Richard Alvarez]

Earnest,

Your opinion of royalty free music is certainly one you are entitled to. Though I have found that, just as with popular music, the better sources are more expensive. If you searched the indy band site link I gave you, you will find tons of 'message' music with lyrics, and attitude put out by talented, but 'unkown' bands who just my be the next best thing. They are relatively easy to approach concerning their music. I myself have just reached an agreement with a new up and coming band to use their music in a short I am producing. I think it will be a hit some day, and it's not costing me a dime.

Your argue that because their music has less 'merit', or is less popular, it somehow negates the point that their SYNCH rights are represented in exactly the way you insist synch right should be. Easy to locate, negotiate and purchase.

What we are left with, is the fact that the people who own the synch rights to their music, get to make them exactly as accessable as they choose to make them.

"House sales are about transferring ownership. The negotiated price is the same whether you live in it, pick your nose in it or raise it" I don't know what you mean by 'the same'... I've seen house prices listed, and go up or down depending on how 'popular' their location is, and what the market demand might be... and the house itself doesn't change at all. SYNCH rights are also about transferring ownership. It can be complete, or partial or limited in any manner of ways... because the owner of the copyright gets to decide exactly how they want to transfer it.

You seem to have a basically flawed understanding of copyright law. You seem to think that it should be easy for someone interested in my property to have immediate access to it.

Copyright is intellectual property. It is bought, sold, traded and licensed just as you would any other property. It consisits of a whole 'bundle' of assets including, but not limited to performance, reproduction, broadcast, and synch rights. And there is absolutely no obligation or law that requires me to list my property for sale for any given ammount on any given list at any given time.

I have proven that owners of some IP make the synch rights easily and readily available. You are upset that owners of certain extremely valuable IP will not make specific elements of their rights readily available to YOU.

The "problem" as you see it, lies with those who decide NOT to make their snch rights readily available, not with the system that allows them to do so if they choose to.

[Les Wilson]

Richard,

Gee, after all these posts, you still misspell my name and misrepresent my points. :-) I try to take the time to create thoughtful contributory posts and avoid "YOU" based language and attacks. However I don't care for the ideas YOU imbued upon my post so...

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

If you searched the indy band site link I gave you, you will find tons of 'message' music with lyrics, and attitude put out by talented, but 'unkown' bands who just my be the next best thing.

Trust me, I went there but I didn't get very far since most pages just stalled and wouldn't load. Regardless, I've bookmarked it for the future if I ever need it and I will use it with the young people I encounter who want to do a project with unpopular works.

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

Your argue that because their music has less 'merit', or is less popular, it somehow negates the point that their SYNCH rights are represented in exactly the way you insist synch right should be.

I didn't argue that. I argued that some rights for most popular music are easily gotten through less than a handful of of online websites. Synch rights to the same popular music is an "attorney required activity" and high "BTU" effort for the rich.

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

You seem to have a basically flawed understanding of copyright law. You seem to think that it should be easy for someone interested in my property to have immediate access to it.

I don't think that at all. The misrepresentation you give mixes the law with the process. My availability/access criticism is of the process. The law doesn't address the process and I don't think I said that it did.

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

And there is absolutely no obligation or law that requires me to list my property for sale for any given ammount on any given list at any given time.

This is more mixing of the law and the process. I never said there was a law that obliged access. I criticised the process that denies easy access for synch to popular works but doesn't deny easy access for other rights to the same works. Even determining if they are available and therefore may be worth the "BTUs" would be an improvement to ASCAP et al

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

You are upset that owners of certain extremely valuable IP will not make specific elements of their rights readily available to YOU.

I am not "upset" and imbuing that emotional reaction on me is unnecessary. I have no idea if "they" would grant rights or not so how could I be "upset"? But I am critical of the process for popular works that makes even finding out if they are available an "attorney required activity" and high "BTU" effort (according to most sources) for the rich.

I think the process should be improved. You defend the current process. Fine.

[Richard Alvarez]

Ernest.


"The law and process for sync rights needs to be improved" - seems to be a straightforward comment on your thoughts concerning both the law AND the process. So maybe you are combining the two in your complaints. My point being, that the copyright LAW has nothing to do with the availability of the rights.

At any rate, you are free to create a independant 'for profit' company, that martials its forces to negotiate and offer synch rights to various popular songs. Orgainizations such as WEVA are trying to get Ascap and Bmi to look into just this option, but so far... THE MARKET doesn't seem big enough to the copyright holders.

"Sync rights to popular music should be as easy to determine availability, apply for and acquire as it is for other rights." - Why? They are not the same as other rights, and have a different value.

[Les Wilson]

"The law and process for sync rights needs to be improved" should be interpreted as "The Law needs to be improved and the process needs to be improved". Two independent points.

Why should the synch rights process for availability and acquisition be improved?
That is a fair question. Probably the same set of business issues asked of Steve Jobs when he set out to make MP3 availability and acquisition affordable and easy. Eliminating the legal fees reduces costs and raises profits. Lower costs can also be used to lower prices and may increase demand thereby driving increased profits through increased sales because it's easier to access (online and attorney free) and acquire (affordable for some venues) for new market being addressed. And, once you have a low cost channel to market, you can offer tiered pricing for different uses (one-time performance to 50 people thru use in a Hollywood blockbuster) to sell into untapped markets. It's the price elasticity thing. There's probably more reasons.